Search results

This article deals with the issues pertinent to the EU Russia visa dialogue one of the major areas of cooperation between the two partners. The article aims to identify the main problems of this dialogue, as well as prospects for the introduction of a visa-free regime between the EU and Russia. The authors provide a historical overview of cooperation in this area and consider problems and prospects of visa liberalization from the economic, legal, and political perspectives. The analysis draws on primary sources such as the EU and Russia's legislation, EU Russia agreements on visa facilitation and readmission, visa statistics, expert interviews, as well as analytical reports and research works on the topic. Particular attention is paid to the "Common steps towards visa-free short-term travel of the citizens of the EU and Russia", which is currently the main document in the visa dialogue. Having assessed the implementation of the provisions contained in the four blocks of the "Common Steps", the authors draw conclusions about the political nature of major obstacles to a visa-free regime.This article is based on the proceedings of the "Russia and European Union: the dynamics of interrelations" international conference organized by the EU center of the I. Kant Baltic Federal University (the EU4U project).

Works that address European Union (EU)- Russia cooperation within the overarching project of the common space of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) often look at this 'space' as if it were regarded by both parties as a naturally coherent field, where cooperation had to be developed evenly in all of the sub-fields. Consequently, this misperception often leads to the conclusion that EU-Russia cooperation on issues of justice and home affairs is rather unsuccessful because, on one hand, there is still no visa-free regime and, on the other hand, developments in the sphere of human rights and judicial reforms in Russia are far from being satisfactory. This article argues that in order to better appreciate the results of EU-Russia cooperation in the field of internal security, one should not analyse it in connection with EU attempts to promote human rights and democracy in Russia. Such constructivist - and somewhat idealist - view has prevented many researchers from a more pragmatic assessment that would take into account some real achievements of this cooperation that fit well with the commonly defined interests and goals in the sphere of internal security and migration management in particular. This article shows that both partners have managed to achieve much of what has been planned in the sphere of migration management. Moreover, through this cooperation with Russia, the EU has a chance to promote one of its most internationally visible instruments (readmission agreements) in Central Asia - a region where EU's direct involvement has not been very successful.

Works that address European Union (EU)-Russia cooperation within the overarching project of the common space of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) often look at this 'space' as if it were regarded by both parties as a naturally coherent field, where cooperation had to be developed evenly in all of the sub-fields. Consequently, this misperception often leads to the conclusion that EU-Russia cooperation on issues of justice and home affairs is rather unsuccessful because, on one hand, there is still no visa-free regime and, on the other hand, developments in the sphere of human rights and judicial reforms in Russia are far from being satisfactory. This article argues that in order to better appreciate the results of EU-Russia cooperation in the field of internal security, one should not analyse it in connection with EU attempts to promote human rights and democracy in Russia. Such constructivist -- and somewhat idealist -- view has prevented many researchers from a more pragmatic assessment that would take into account some real achievements of this cooperation that fit well with the commonly defined interests and goals in the sphere of internal security and migration management in particular. This article shows that both partners have managed to achieve much of what has been planned in the sphere of migration management. Moreover, through this cooperation with Russia, the EU has a chance to promote one of its most internationally visible instruments (readmission agreements) in Central Asia -- a region where EU's direct involvement has not been very successful. Adapted from the source document.

This article analyses how global governance frameworks and knowledge claims are translated to fit local contexts. It specifically looks at harm reduction initiatives targeting injection drug users utilising the case of Tajikistan. In the 1990s, this post–Soviet Central Asian country became exposed to an inflow of cheap and easily available heroin from Afghanistan. While Tajikistan mainly became a transit country, some parts of the local population also became addicted. To tackle the negative consequences of heroin addiction, starting from the 1990s international donors proposed the country adopt a range of harm reduction measures, including providing access to opioid substitution therapy and establishing drop-in centres where single-use needles and syringes would be distributed. This article discusses how donor-promoted harm reduction initiatives were localised in Tajikistan, why and with what outcomes. It argues that instead of a full acceptance or rejection of knowledge promoted by international actors, a complex translation process can be observed on the ground. International norms are thus localised by taking into account societal attitudes towards injection drug users, the changing nature of legitimate expertise, evolving national legislation and everyday practices, against the background of other conflicting global governance regimes and local geopolitical priorities.

Cet article retrace les différentes origines, le développement, l'influence et les positions politiques de diverses communautés d'émigrés tadjiks qui ont émergé après l'éclatement de l'Union soviétique, principalement en Russie, mais également au-delà de l'espace post-soviétique. Il montre que des facteurs tels que la date et le mode d'arrivée, la région d'origine, le statut socio-économique dans la société d'accueil, ainsi que les politiques du pays d'accueil et du pays d'origine ont tous une incidence sur les interactions au sein de ces groupes d'émigrés et entre eux, ainsi que sur leurs engagements avec la patrie. L'article porte un regard critique sur l'activisme sociopolitique au sein du complexe de la communauté d'émigrés tadjiks et met en évidence différentes formes et différents niveaux de mobilisation. Il montre également la complexité des réponses apportées par le gouvernement tadjik aux activités des émigrants, fondées sur l'« utilité perçue » de différentes communautés d'émigrés.